Behavioral Study Of Obedience: Analysis
Obedience to destructive authority is a recurrent social issue in human history. And more than often, human beings do not need to hear the imperative sentence “ Thou Shalt Obey ” in order to comply with a destructive rule, a questionable decision, or with an odd order. All over the world, human beings seem to strive toward obedience to destructive authority. I could not help but connect this reasoning with real-life events such as the Holocaust, suicide bombings, and local events such as the case of the two high school students, in the U.S., who obeyed to their teacher’s orders to throw a classmate out the window. It seems that obedience to destructive authority is something all human beings had and still have, regardless of time, space, culture,
…show more content…
and identity. This paper examines obedience to destructive authority, focusing on the following questions: Does obedience to destructive authority differ across cultures? Is obedience to destructive authority a cultural universal?
While many hypotheses (e.g., Stephen Reicher & S.
Alexander Haslam, 2011; Stefano Passini & Davide Morselli, 2009) seem to provide evidence that obedience to destructive authority differ by culture, other hypotheses ( e.g., Stanley Milgram, 1963; Thomas Blass, 2012) seem more likely to infer that obedience to destructive authority is a cultural universal—a trait that all human beings have, regardless of their culture.
In his article” Behavioral Study of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram (1963) offered an analysis of how authority may influence obedience. The purpose of the study was to provide the readers with criteria for obedience in order to explain why people obey to destructive authority. Milgram (1963) conducted an experiment that consists of
Ordering a naive subject to administer an electric shock to a victim. A simulated shock generator [was] used, with 30 clearly marked voltage levels that range [d] from 15 to 450 volts. The instrument bears verbal designations that range [d] from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock… two switches after this last designation [were] simply marked XXX. (p. 372 …show more content…
)
Milgram (1963) found that out of 40 participants 26 went all the way to 450 volts. Thus, Milgram (1963) concluded that obedience to destructive authority is “As basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to. Some system of authority is a requirement of all communal living, and it is only the man dwelling in isolation who is not forced to respond, through defiance or submission, to the commands of others (p. 371).
According to Milgram (1963), the 26 participants went all the way to 450 volts because people can’t help but obey orders, even if those orders go against their values or the values of the society in which those people live; “for many persons obedience may be a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed, a prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct” (Milgram, 1963, p. 371). In other words, obedience may be an impulse all human beings have.
In their article, “ After shock? Towards a Social Identity Explanation of the Milgram ‘Obedience’ Studies”, Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011) offered an analysis of the Milgram studies claiming that the results of those studies were banal and did not consider the complexity of obedience. Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011) went against Milgram’s idea that people can’t help but obey orders, suggesting that more than often in approaching the recurrent issue of obedience to authority, people tend to stereotype situations in which obedience to authority is present.
In addition, Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam refused to agree with the idea that “ in the face of authority, people lose sign of their own goals and values and cede responsibility to those in authority—so they become fixated on how well they carry out their allotted instructions rather than on what those instructions are’ (Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam, 2011, p. 165). In other words, Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011) suggested that obedience to authority takes the undeserved part of a cultural universal—an element that is common to all cultures—because in judging obedience, the cultural contexts in which obedience occurs are irrelevant facts.
According to Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011), obedience to authority is much more than a passive relationship between teacher and student, participant and experimenter, or victim and tyrant. Obedience reflects the cultural contexts in which teacher/student, participant/experimenter, and victim/tyrann live. Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011) concluded that obedience is not a cultural universal; instead, it is a social construct. Thus, after having analyzed the background of the Milgram studies—male participants, the learners were Milgram’s confederates, 450 volts were labeled as (xxx), the studies took place right after the end of WWII—Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011) asked, “whether the results would differ with different participants or in alternative cultural contexts… would women obey as much as men? Would other nationalities obey as much as Americans? … Would people still obey today? ” (Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam, 2011, p. 164).
Similarly, Stefano Passini & Davide Morselli (2009) analyzed obedience in relationship to cultural contexts. In their article “Authority Relationships Between Obedience and Disobedience”, Passini & Morselli claimed, “ people feel obliged at different levels to behave as demanded by the authority, depending on what they base the authority relationship on: i.e. rules, roles or values” (2009, p. 99). According to Passini & Morselli “when a legitimate authority issues a legitimate and acceptable demand, all … types of citizens are inclined to obey” ( 2009, p. 99). In other words, people obey authority, not because they can’t help but obey orders, but because the teacher, tyrann, experimenter creates a social and cultural context/background—rules, roles, or values--in which authority is acceptable. Thus, obedience to destructive authority is influenced by cultural contexts and also by how well destructive authority is able to hide itself in the cultural context.
Instead, Thomas Blass (2012) is against the hypothesis that obedience is influenced by culture. In his article “ A Cross-Cultural comparison of Studies of Obedience Using the Milgram Paradigm: A Review” Thomas Blass (2012) claimed that “ people’s powerful tendency to obey authority may be one of the universals of social behavior (p. 203). Blass (2012) compared five American studies of obedience with studies in Europe—Italy, Holland—and Canada, and he found, “ no sex differences in obedience [and overall] very similar degrees of obedience” (Thomas Blass, 2012, p. 199). In other words, obedience to destructive authority does not differ by culture.
The literature review, in this paper, shows that people do obey to destructive authority, even when under physical and psychological stress.
It also shows that obedience to destructive authority has been found in the United States and in countries outside the United States. This might prove that obedience to destructive authority is a cultural universal. However, the literature review also shows that obedience to destructive authority is not an inevitable behavior connected to the survival of the human species such as eating, drinking, and learning, but rather it is a social construct. In other words, obedience to destructive authority is influenced by the values, symbols, and behaviors of a society. Thus, if authority respects the rules, roles, and values of the society/group in which the authority exists, obedience is considered an acceptable act; even obedience to destructive authority is
tolerated.
Take, as an example, the Milgram studies in which the last two most dangerous switches, on the shock generator, were simply marked “XXX”. No verbal designation and no symbolic meaning were given to the last two switches. Consequently, the two switches held no particular American value, no symbolic meaning, and most importantly, no association with the American word “ shock”, and with the concepts of pain and danger. Milgram (1963) used the “XXX” because it is not an American symbol/word associated with pain or danger. In doing so, Milgram (1963) tricked participants into using the two most dangerous switches because those switches were not related to any particular American value, norm, or rule. This proves that obedience to destructive authority may be influenced by cultural contexts and, thus, by the culture itself. In the American language the symbol “XXX” is not related to the effects of an electric shock. It is also not related to any particular American value, rule, or role.
The example proves that when destructive authority is hidden under a word, a person, or a situation with no particular cultural connotations, obedience is acceptable. In the same way, when destructive authority supports a cultural context, obedience is tolerated. Thus, obedience to destructive authority is a variable, influenced by time, space, and cultural context. In other words, obedience to destructive authority differs across cultures and, as such, it is a social construct.
and identity. This paper examines obedience to destructive authority, focusing on the following questions: Does obedience to destructive authority differ across cultures? Is obedience to destructive authority a cultural universal?
While many hypotheses (e.g., Stephen Reicher & S.
Alexander Haslam, 2011; Stefano Passini & Davide Morselli, 2009) seem to provide evidence that obedience to destructive authority differ by culture, other hypotheses ( e.g., Stanley Milgram, 1963; Thomas Blass, 2012) seem more likely to infer that obedience to destructive authority is a cultural universal—a trait that all human beings have, regardless of their culture.
In his article” Behavioral Study of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram (1963) offered an analysis of how authority may influence obedience. The purpose of the study was to provide the readers with criteria for obedience in order to explain why people obey to destructive authority. Milgram (1963) conducted an experiment that consists of
Ordering a naive subject to administer an electric shock to a victim. A simulated shock generator [was] used, with 30 clearly marked voltage levels that range [d] from 15 to 450 volts. The instrument bears verbal designations that range [d] from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock… two switches after this last designation [were] simply marked XXX. (p. 372 …show more content…
)
Milgram (1963) found that out of 40 participants 26 went all the way to 450 volts. Thus, Milgram (1963) concluded that obedience to destructive authority is “As basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to. Some system of authority is a requirement of all communal living, and it is only the man dwelling in isolation who is not forced to respond, through defiance or submission, to the commands of others (p. 371).
According to Milgram (1963), the 26 participants went all the way to 450 volts because people can’t help but obey orders, even if those orders go against their values or the values of the society in which those people live; “for many persons obedience may be a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed, a prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct” (Milgram, 1963, p. 371). In other words, obedience may be an impulse all human beings have.
In their article, “ After shock? Towards a Social Identity Explanation of the Milgram ‘Obedience’ Studies”, Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011) offered an analysis of the Milgram studies claiming that the results of those studies were banal and did not consider the complexity of obedience. Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011) went against Milgram’s idea that people can’t help but obey orders, suggesting that more than often in approaching the recurrent issue of obedience to authority, people tend to stereotype situations in which obedience to authority is present.
In addition, Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam refused to agree with the idea that “ in the face of authority, people lose sign of their own goals and values and cede responsibility to those in authority—so they become fixated on how well they carry out their allotted instructions rather than on what those instructions are’ (Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam, 2011, p. 165). In other words, Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011) suggested that obedience to authority takes the undeserved part of a cultural universal—an element that is common to all cultures—because in judging obedience, the cultural contexts in which obedience occurs are irrelevant facts.
According to Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011), obedience to authority is much more than a passive relationship between teacher and student, participant and experimenter, or victim and tyrant. Obedience reflects the cultural contexts in which teacher/student, participant/experimenter, and victim/tyrann live. Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011) concluded that obedience is not a cultural universal; instead, it is a social construct. Thus, after having analyzed the background of the Milgram studies—male participants, the learners were Milgram’s confederates, 450 volts were labeled as (xxx), the studies took place right after the end of WWII—Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam (2011) asked, “whether the results would differ with different participants or in alternative cultural contexts… would women obey as much as men? Would other nationalities obey as much as Americans? … Would people still obey today? ” (Stephen Reicher & S. Alexander Haslam, 2011, p. 164).
Similarly, Stefano Passini & Davide Morselli (2009) analyzed obedience in relationship to cultural contexts. In their article “Authority Relationships Between Obedience and Disobedience”, Passini & Morselli claimed, “ people feel obliged at different levels to behave as demanded by the authority, depending on what they base the authority relationship on: i.e. rules, roles or values” (2009, p. 99). According to Passini & Morselli “when a legitimate authority issues a legitimate and acceptable demand, all … types of citizens are inclined to obey” ( 2009, p. 99). In other words, people obey authority, not because they can’t help but obey orders, but because the teacher, tyrann, experimenter creates a social and cultural context/background—rules, roles, or values--in which authority is acceptable. Thus, obedience to destructive authority is influenced by cultural contexts and also by how well destructive authority is able to hide itself in the cultural context.
Instead, Thomas Blass (2012) is against the hypothesis that obedience is influenced by culture. In his article “ A Cross-Cultural comparison of Studies of Obedience Using the Milgram Paradigm: A Review” Thomas Blass (2012) claimed that “ people’s powerful tendency to obey authority may be one of the universals of social behavior (p. 203). Blass (2012) compared five American studies of obedience with studies in Europe—Italy, Holland—and Canada, and he found, “ no sex differences in obedience [and overall] very similar degrees of obedience” (Thomas Blass, 2012, p. 199). In other words, obedience to destructive authority does not differ by culture.
The literature review, in this paper, shows that people do obey to destructive authority, even when under physical and psychological stress.
It also shows that obedience to destructive authority has been found in the United States and in countries outside the United States. This might prove that obedience to destructive authority is a cultural universal. However, the literature review also shows that obedience to destructive authority is not an inevitable behavior connected to the survival of the human species such as eating, drinking, and learning, but rather it is a social construct. In other words, obedience to destructive authority is influenced by the values, symbols, and behaviors of a society. Thus, if authority respects the rules, roles, and values of the society/group in which the authority exists, obedience is considered an acceptable act; even obedience to destructive authority is
tolerated.
Take, as an example, the Milgram studies in which the last two most dangerous switches, on the shock generator, were simply marked “XXX”. No verbal designation and no symbolic meaning were given to the last two switches. Consequently, the two switches held no particular American value, no symbolic meaning, and most importantly, no association with the American word “ shock”, and with the concepts of pain and danger. Milgram (1963) used the “XXX” because it is not an American symbol/word associated with pain or danger. In doing so, Milgram (1963) tricked participants into using the two most dangerous switches because those switches were not related to any particular American value, norm, or rule. This proves that obedience to destructive authority may be influenced by cultural contexts and, thus, by the culture itself. In the American language the symbol “XXX” is not related to the effects of an electric shock. It is also not related to any particular American value, rule, or role.
The example proves that when destructive authority is hidden under a word, a person, or a situation with no particular cultural connotations, obedience is acceptable. In the same way, when destructive authority supports a cultural context, obedience is tolerated. Thus, obedience to destructive authority is a variable, influenced by time, space, and cultural context. In other words, obedience to destructive authority differs across cultures and, as such, it is a social construct.